RFC: Naming convention for ILP64 variant of BLAS/LAPACK

Hi folks,
This is an informal RFC
about naming convention of SONAME and package name.
As discussed in [1][2][3], Debian will need a set of ILP64[4] interface
to BLAS/LAPACK in the future. However, adding this set of interface will
bring changes and NEW binary packages to all packages that fill these
high popcon virtual packages, so I sent this RFC to both -devel and
-devel.
1. libblas.so (dev)
2. libblas.so.3 (lib)
3. liblapack.so (dev)
4. liblapack.so.3 (lib)
The proposal is a naming convention for the ILP64 variant packages, and
those libblas.so.3 and liblapack.so.3 provider packages can follow this
convention in the future.
Proposal:
* The "-ilp64" postfix should be appended to the SONAME of all the new
shared objects that provide ILP64 interface. For example:
libblas.so.3 (LP64) -> libblas-ilp64.so.3 (ILP64)
As a result, the same postfix should be added to the binary package
name. For example:
libblas3 (LP64) -> libblas-ilp64-3 (ILP64)
* No change will be made to all the present BLAS/LAPACK libraires that
provide LP64 interface.
* No change will be made to either API or ABI of BLAS/LAPACK.
* This proposal only applies to 64-bit-capable architectures.
Advantage:
* If in doubt, any developer or user can learn about the keyword
"ilp64" from search engines.
(Some upstream code denotes ILP64 interface with macro names such
INTERFACE64, BLAS64, ... and they are bad keywords to search enging)
Next:
1. Packages that provide libblas.so{,.3}/liblapack.so{,.3}:
They will need changes to add corresponding binary packages.
2. Packages that depend on <ditto>:
No change needed. No transition needed. Package maintainers can
optionally choose to link against the ILP64 variant.
3. Julia may be possibly the first package that moves to use ILP64
ininterface where avaialble.
Any comment will be appritiated. In the future I'll make changes as said
in this RFC if no one is object to it.
Best,
lumin
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=878121
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905826
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=910924
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_computing#64-bit_data_models